A thought that might lead to interesting controversy. In some radio talkshow there was a man who said, that, because of the possibility of unwanted children, for which he might have to pay upkeep, he preferred to stick with "sexual services", where, while not on paper, the possibility of him being held responsible for such children does not exist in practice because of the nature of such services. At first glance this seems to conform with the bible (i.e. all sex outside marriage is and has to be fornication). Interesting thoughts arise if this put into contemporary judicial context. One might easily say in good faith the man was paranoid. On paper, however, the decision to actually give birth to children might be made unilaterally by the mother (if she actually has that choice, i.e. we are not in Texas). In Denmark, an explicit consent has to be given to sexual activity (google "iconsent app"). If two declared wills contradict in an important point, it is both parties' duty to seek clarification of the matter. If no agreement can be made, there can be no "deal". At least this is what responsible and civilized behaviour would imply in general. Yet lawful agreements on the proceedings if unwanted fertiliation happens are not an established social practice. The implication seems to be that the decision to have sex is potentially held equivalent to the decision to have children, which is not obviously the case. At first, there is chance. This can very well and easily be assorted to "risk assessment". But then there is also the decision of another human being that might have very different interests.
In jurisdictions where abortion is not an option the second factor is taken out of the equation: Both parties are subject to chance, ie having sex implicitely means the readiness to have children (prevention or not).Paradoxically not giving the woman the option eliminates the alledged necessity of a formal agreement before the act, which might be felt as oppressive and cruel afterwards when things get concrete (ie: hormones kick in and the decision made is not distant and abstract anymore), and ensures parity of parties in that matter.

Not a question, just thoughts.